WI: President George Smathers in the 60s

So basically like an earlier version of Bill Clinton with added racism?
Hmm, perhaps, if you also throw in red baiting and certain blatant political opposition to overt left wingers. Smathers was also opposed to national health insurance, which Clinton obviously tried to get through.

I think it may be an awkward fit as a comparison though, as Smathers was a product of his era. In certain areas he could be considered perhaps more Liberal (maintaining the New Deal that was there) than Clinton, in others more Conservative (opposition to Civil Rights, red baiting, opposition of national health care, etc), and all under different circumstances and in a different environment than Clinton. I had an analogy to him using a mish mash of figures from his era, but I forgot it. I think it was something to the effect that he was like a more conservative JFK, with a private sector-public sector view like RFK, and a view on government similar to Nixon (perhaps minus the idea that government should be limited only when he doesn't run it).
 
Regardless RB and Norton, this 1964 could produce an interesting election map.

I personally could see Rockefeller getting the GOP nod, and whipping Smathers, but i have a better idea.

I have to say this​

Democrats for Goldwater

(playing off the republicans who refused to vote for Goldwater in 64)​
Wishing you well, his majesty,

The Scandinavian Emperor

Now that I've posted some things on Smathers positions (or at least those he would have espoused electorally), I think we can get a better bearing on how 1964 would have gone. And you guys are free to use any of the information I posted to draw your own conclusions.

Smathers was a Centrist Liberal like JFK, but was rather more conservative (I'll go little c rather than big C there). That means he could cut into Goldwater's support, but that he wouldn't be as distinct from Goldwater politically as JFK or LBJ were so that could raise Goldwater to higher footing. Whether Goldwater would get the nomination or not is perhaps debateable; while a more conservative Liberal than either LBJ or JFK, Smathers was still marketing himself as a Liberal (which would undercut Rocky as a Liberal alternative), and Rockefeller had the scandal of a divorce on his hands which hurt him in 1964. However, perhaps you could find a way to have another Republican besides Goldwater or Rocky get the nomination.

I do think Smathers could garner a lot of Republican support. In the 1950 campaign, the GOP threw its support to him to beat Smathers because they knew their guy wouldn't win (Solid South and all), and Smathers positions in 1950 were ones they supported; again "opposed to regulation, regimentation, red tape, and big government" (I'd like to say, however, I don't think that should be taken to the extreme of Smathers being himself like a Goldwater or Reagan Conservative. Simply that he was opposed to expanding things anymore, and perhaps would make modifications here and there to peel things back while maintaining the existing New Deal state; perhaps like Nixon). However, the parties of this day were more solid and step in line so maybe not, but if it is Goldwater, and as Goldwater was out there for many GOP members, you could see that "Republicans for Smathers" thing, but it may be debatable.
Now that we've discussed that, its time to move on to "Democrats for Goldwater", which I think may be a bit less likely than the afforementioned, but it may still be possible. Politically, at least in most ways, Goldwater is either going to be the same as Smathers or -most of the time- more Conservative. Except perhaps on Civil Rights, and therein lies an issue where he could perhaps gain some Democrats if he plays his cards right. I think both Smathers and Goldwater would be equally opposed to Civil Rights legislation that was comprehensive, but while I think Smathers was simply cool on the issue of Civil Rights personally, Goldwater was supportive of equality. That could potentially gain some black votes, but I think it was more "put up or shut up" for blacks by this time and support of legislative equality, not just personally belief in equality, would have been necessary; if we're going with the 'JFK shot in '63" scenario, Kennedy had come to propose a comprehensive Civil Rights bill shortly before his death which would later become the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and blacks were very disheartened when Kennedy was shot because they feared it may never go through without JFK). So black voters will want that bill passed and want Civil Rights legislation. If neither candidate supports it, that could render blacks simply neutral in the election. There's also the issue, moving on from Civil Rights, of the New Dealers. Here, we could see a replay of 1960, but instead of Kennedy alienating New Deal Liberals, it would be Smathers, and as Smathers is more conservative than Kennedy, and the election of 1950 against Pepper and slandering him is still something the New Dealers remember, you could see a bloody primary where the New Deal Liberals try to do what they did in 1960 and run a New Deal Liberal against Smathers in the primary. However, this was -again- the era of strong parties, so the Democrats could end up falling in line when Smathers ended up becoming the candidate for the Dems for 64, which I think he likely would have. The need for unity after JFK's death and Smathers riding to victory on JFK's coffin is also there. But, maybe I could be wrong, and the New Dealers will try to run a third party. But, I'd most likely not believe that. And the New Dealers certainly wouldn't support Goldwater, who never supported the New Deal.

So a 1960s-centrist Democrat like JFK then. Good to know.

Sorry, I missed this I think.

He was a centrist Democrat like JFK, but was more conservative.
 
One scenario I have seen, I forget where, is Hubert Humphrey running against George Smathers for the Democratic nomination in 1964 due to the latters refusal to support Civil Rights legislation. There is some fighting between the two but in the end as expected Smathers comes out on top. Humphrey then breaks away the Farmer-Labor Party from the Democratic Party because of this, and later ends up on the Republican ticket with Nelson Rockefeller. Don't know how likely this is.

At the same time though, it was based on the idea of Kennedy dying about two years before his OTL assassination, either because natural causes or some other assassination, I don't recall.​
 
One scenario I have seen, I forget where, is Hubert Humphrey running against George Smathers for the Democratic nomination in 1964 due to the latters refusal to support Civil Rights legislation. There is some fighting between the two but in the end as expected Smathers comes out on top. Humphrey then breaks away the Farmer-Labor Party from the Democratic Party because of this, and later ends up on the Republican ticket with Nelson Rockefeller. Don't know how likely this is.

At the same time though, it was based on the idea of Kennedy dying about two years before his OTL assassination, either because natural causes or some other assassination, I don't recall.

Humphrey is nothing if not a Democratic loyalist, plus he was the one who purged all the Commies from FL before merging them with the Dems in MN. That whole scenario reeks of ASB-ness.
 
It is an Election Atlas TL. No offense to the people over there, but the quality on those is not up to a par with our level of academia a lot of the time.
 
*Bump*

This topic still has legs, and, as the 1960s were a rather vast and weird little play ground, there's a lot that could still be discussed. For a limited list of events in the 1960s which could be discussed, I have finded this:

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/worldevents_01.html

Btw, there is also the issue of Thurgood Marshall being appointed to the Supreme Court. I doubt Smathers would appoint a black Justice, so that leaves open to debate who he would appoint.
 
I find the idea of a Smathers Presidency to be interesting. Any chance riots happen ala 1968 during his Presidency?
 
Or race riots.

Does anyone know where Smathers stood on Vietnam?

He supported the war.

EDIT: That makes an interesting scenario. He is closer the JFK than LBJ (being a Centrist Liberal instead of a New Deal Liberal) and JFK was supportive of Vietnam to the degree to aid and maybe advisers but not war, but Smathers is far more conservative, and perhaps not the foreign policy wonk JFK was (which is what made JFK want to avoid another Korean Action type involvement), albeit you could say that his dealings with Latin America would make him good on foreign policy and similarly pragmatic. But, being more conservative than JFK, Smathers may go gung-ho into 'Nam like LBJ did to take out the Commies. Or, as we've seen in his political career, he played to an audience, and if he thought his audience wanted US involvement, he could give it to them to please them and appear good in front of their eyes. In this area, you have to keep in mind the before and after public view of the war. Before the US made Vietnam an American war, only 30-some percent of Americans even paid attention to Vietnam, and most of those didn't think it would end in any defeat of the North (either ceasefire or the fall of Saigon being considered more likely). But after the US Americanized the war in 64 and 65, in those early years, I think it was something like 80-some percent of Americans supporting the war. Goldwater tried to make it a larger issue in 1964 but it was still something no one paid attention to. So, while there'd be a supermajority supporting the war early on if Smathers still had it engaged, before that, not many people were paying attention, so it kinda undercuts that idea, unless he feels it ballooning as an issue and/or feels the public would be all for it. Smathers could also suffer from what LBJ did, which was being presented with a foreign policy issue when he was not the person who had been dealing directly with it, and therefore making ignorant decisions concerning it. If we go with the JFK dead by assassination thing, that'd be an issue. Again, if Smathers' Latin American support does count toward an overall foreign policy wonkishness, that'd put him ahead of LBJ in handling things. But he could easily still go all out engagement due to a more hawkish approach than Kennedy.

I was thinking race riots. Was he a law and order kind of guy?

He was hawkish and very concerned with crime, not so much crime's causes.

I guess Roguebeaver knows. This would pull a Nixon. More jails for more criminals, but not much to stop those criminals from coming into being.
 
Last edited:
One scenario I have seen, I forget where, is Hubert Humphrey running against George Smathers for the Democratic nomination in 1964 due to the latters refusal to support Civil Rights legislation. There is some fighting between the two but in the end as expected Smathers comes out on top. Humphrey then breaks away the Farmer-Labor Party from the Democratic Party because of this, and later ends up on the Republican ticket with Nelson Rockefeller. Don't know how likely this is.

At the same time though, it was based on the idea of Kennedy dying about two years before his OTL assassination, either because natural causes or some other assassination, I don't recall.

I've actually read this timeline on uselectionatlas.org, called "Gorgeous George, in and onward" or something really close to that. I know the author (as well as you could know some random guy you met on a political forum). I didn't find it likely either but it was a fun read and I wish he'd continue. Also, yeah it was natural causes.
 
I've actually read this timeline on uselectionatlas.org, called "Gorgeous George, in and onward" or something really close to that. I know the author (as well as you could know some random guy you met on a political forum). I didn't find it likely either but it was a fun read and I wish he'd continue. Also, yeah it was natural causes.
The Magic Addison's attack is a reason I dislike the concept of that TL.
 
Top